22340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Department of the Treasury is soliciting 

comments on the effectiveness of 

OFAC’s licensing procedures for the 

exportation of agricultural commodities, 

medicine, and medical devices to Sudan 

and Iran. Pursuant to section 906(c) of 

the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 

Enhancement Act of 2000 (Title IX of 

Pub. L. 106–387, 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) 

(the ‘‘Act’’), OFAC is required to submit 

a biennial report to the Congress on the 

operation of licensing procedures for 

such exports. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before May 23, 2011 to 

be assured of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Fax: Attn: Request for Comments 

(TSRA) (202) 622–0091. 

Mail: Attn: Request for Comments 

(TSRA), Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Department of the Treasury, 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

about these licensing procedures should 

be directed to the Licensing Division, 

Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

Department of the Treasury, 1500 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20220, telephone: (202) 

622–2480 (not a toll free number). 

Additional information about these 

licensing procedures is also available 

under the heading ‘‘Other OFAC 

Sanctions Programs’’ via ‘‘Resources’’ at 

http://www.treasury.gov/about/ 

organizational-structure/offices/Pages/ 

Office-of-Foreign-Assets-Control.aspx. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

current procedures used by OFAC for 

authorizing the export of agricultural 

commodities, medicine, and medical 

devices to Sudan and Iran are set forth 

in 31 CFR 538.523–526 and 31 CFR 

560.530–533. Under the provisions of 

section 906(c) of the Act, OFAC must 

submit a biennial report to the Congress 

on the operation, during the preceding 

two-year period, of the licensing 

procedures required by section 906 of 

the Act for the export of agricultural 

commodities, medicine, and medical 

devices to Sudan and Iran. This report 

is to include: 

(1) The number and types of licenses 

applied for; 

(2) The number and types of licenses 

approved; 

(3) The average amount of time 

elapsed from the date of filing of a 

license application until the date of its 

approval; 

(4) The extent to which the licensing 

procedures were effectively 

implemented; and 

(5) A description of comments 

received from interested parties about 

the extent to which the licensing 

procedures were effective, after holding 

a public 30-day comment period. 

This notice solicits comments from 

interested parties regarding the 

effectiveness of OFAC’s licensing 

procedures for the export of agricultural 

commodities, medicine, and medical 

devices to Sudan and Iran for the time 

period of October 1, 2008–September 

30, 2010. Interested parties submitting 

comments are asked to be as specific as 

possible. In the interest of accuracy and 

completeness, OFAC requires written 

comments. All comments received on or 

before May 23, 2011 will be considered 

by OFAC in developing the report to the 

Congress. Consideration of comments 

received after the end of the comment 

period cannot be assured. 

All comments made will be a matter 

of public record. OFAC will not accept 

comments accompanied by a request 

that part or all of the comments be 

treated confidentially because of their 

business proprietary nature or for any 

other reason; OFAC will return such 

comments when submitted by regular 

mail to the person submitting the 

comments and will not consider them. 

Copies of the public record 

concerning these regulations may be 

obtained from OFAC’s Web site 

(http://www.treasury.gov/ofac). If that 

service is unavailable, written requests 

may be sent to: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, U.S. Department of the 

Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20220, Attn: Andrea 

Gacki, Assistant Director for Licensing. 

Note: On September 9, 2009, OFAC issued 

a general license authorizing most exports of 

agricultural commodities, medicine, and 

medical devices to the Specified Areas of 

Sudan as defined by 31 CFR 538.320. See 31 

CFR 538.523(a)(2). Accordingly, specific 

licenses are no longer required for these 

exports. 

Approved: April 8, 2011. 

Adam J. Szubin, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9568 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 10–208; DA 11–702] 

Further Inquiry Into Tribal Issues 

Relating to Establishment of a Mobility 

Fund 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document seeks 

comment on particular issues for 

consideration by the Federal 

Communication Commission in 

connection with the proposed creation 

of a new Mobility Fund to make 

available one-time support to 

significantly improve coverage of 

current-generation or better mobile 

voice and Internet service for consumers 

in areas where such coverage is 

currently missing. Specifically, 

comment is sought on developing a 

more tailored approach that provides at 

least some Mobility Fund support for 

Tribal lands. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

May 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 10–208, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. Filings can be 

sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 22341 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or telephone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 

202–418–0432. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Auctions and Spectrum Access Division: 

Scott Mackoul, Attorney Advisor, at 

(202) 418–7498. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Inquiry into Tribal Issues Relating to 

Establishment of a Mobility Fund Public 

Notice (Tribal Issues for Mobility Fund 

Public Notice) adopted and released on 

April 18, 2011, in WT Docket No. 10– 

208. The complete text of the Tribal 

Issues for Mobility Fund Public Notice is 

available for public inspection and 

copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET 

Monday through Thursday or from 8 

a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The Tribal 

Issues for Mobility Fund Public Notice 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 

12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, fax 202–488–5563, or you 

may contact BCPI at its Web site: 

http://www.BCPIWEB.com. When 

ordering documents from BCPI, please 

provide the appropriate FCC document 

number, for example, DA 11–702. The 

Tribal Issues for Mobility Fund Public 

Notice is also available on the Internet 

at the Commission’s Web site or by 

using the search function for WT Docket 

No. 10–208 on the ECFS Web page at 

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. 

Synopsis of Public Notice 

1. The Commission recently received 

comments on a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, Universal Service Reform 

Mobility Fund, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 75 FR 67060, November 1, 

2010 (Mobility Fund NPRM), to use 

reserves accumulated in the Universal 

Service Fund (USF) to create a Mobility 

Fund which would employ a marketbased, reverse auction mechanism to 

award one-time support to providers to 

extend mobile voice coverage over 

current-generation 3G or 4G networks in 

areas where such networks are lacking. 

2. In proposing the Mobility Fund, the 

Commission acknowledged the 

relatively low level of 

telecommunications deployment on and 

the distinct challenges in bringing 

connectivity to Tribal lands. The 

Commission further noted that, in light 

of the United States’ unique 

government-to-government trust 

relationship with American Indian 

Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, and 

to address the particular challenges in 

advancing deployment on Tribal lands, 

a more tailored approach that provides 

at least some Mobility Fund support for 

Tribal lands on a separate track may be 

beneficial. The Commission sought 

broad comment on whether to reserve 

funds for developing a Mobility Fund 

program to target USF support 

separately to Tribal lands that trail 

national 3G coverage rates. Commenters 

to the proceeding generally support the 

adoption of a mechanism or program 

within the Mobility Fund focused on 

Tribal areas and provided input on a 

number of elements important to 

establishing a separate fund. There are 

particular issues related to the 

establishment of such a mechanism, 

however, for which additional comment 

may benefit the Commission as it 

considers how to proceed. 

1. Possible Mechanism To Reflect Tribal 

Priorities for Competitive Bidding 

3. The Commission acknowledges and 

respects the sovereignty and selfdetermination of Tribal governments, 

and recognizes their rights to establish 

their own communications priorities 

and goals. Commenters have suggested 

that Tribal governments are best 

positioned to identify what the needs of 

their members and communities are and 

to target resources to best achieve those 

goals. At the same time, the Commission 

has proposed that scarce USF resources 

may best be awarded through a 

competitive, market-based mechanism 

to maximize their impact. In 

considering whether to establish a 

program within the Mobility Fund 

focused on Tribal areas, the Commission 

seeks comment on how it might tailor 

its competitive bidding and other 

procedures to best meet Tribal needs. 

Accordingly, the Commission seeks 

comment on ways to afford Tribal 

governments an opportunity to identify 

their own priorities within the context 

of a reverse auction mechanism for 

Mobility Fund support. 

4. By way of background, the reverse 

auction as proposed in the Mobility 

Fund NPRM would determine winning 

bidders support based on the lowest 

per-unit bids to cover designated 

unserved census blocks, using the 

population or some other metric such as 

road miles in the unserved areas as 

units and taking into account a 

requirement that there be no more than 

one Mobility Fund recipient in any 

particular unserved area. The auction 

mechanism would compare all per-unit 

bids across all areas (that is, compare all 

bids against all other bids throughout 

the eligible areas of the county, rather 

than compare all bids for a single area 

against each other), and rank all the 

submitted bids from lowest per-unit 

amount to highest. The bidder making 

the lowest per-unit bid would first be 

assigned support in an amount equal to 

the amount needed to cover the units 

deemed unserved in the specific area at 

the per-unit amount that was bid. 

Support would continue to be assigned 

to the bidders with the next lowest perunit bids in turn, as long as support had 

not already been assigned for that area, 

until the sum of funds requested by the 

winning bidders was such that no 

further winning bids could be funded by 

the money available in the Mobility 

Fund. Support amounts would be based 

on the per-unit bids of the winning 

bidders times the number of unserved 

units associated with a particular 

geographic area. 

5. The Commission seeks comment 

here on the possibility of providing to 

Tribal governments an additional 

specified number of ‘‘priority units’’ to 

ensure that Mobility Fund support for 

Tribal areas best serves Tribal needs. 

The priority units could be based upon 

the total number of units, however 

defined, in unserved blocks located 

within their Tribal lands boundaries. 

Tribes would have the flexibility to 

allocate these units in whatever manner 

they choose. Under this mechanism, 

Tribes could elect to allocate all of their 

priority units to one census block that 

is particularly important to them (for 

instance, because of the presence of an 

anchor institution, large numbers of 

unserved residents, etc.), or to divide 

the total number of priority units among 

multiple census blocks according to 

their relative priority. By giving Tribes 

an opportunity to allocate additional 

units to particular unserved census 

blocks within the boundaries of their 

Tribal land, a bidder could increase the 

number of units covered by its bid to 

cover those Unserved census blocks and 

therefore reduce its per-unit bid 

amount. This would increase the 

likelihood that the unserved census 

blocks assigned priority units would 

receive funding through the proposed 

competitive bidding process. If such 

bids were to be among those selected to 

receive support, support amounts would 

be based on the per-unit bid amount 

times the total of regular units and 

priority units for the area. The 

Commission invites comment on this 

proposal. In particular, the Commission 

invites comment on whether this 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
22342 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 77 / Thursday, April 21, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

mechanism would help to ensure that 

Tribal priorities are met in providing 

USF support for the extension of mobile 

voice service. To the extent other 

options may be preferable, commenters 

are requested to discuss alternatives in 

detail and explain how these options 

would work in the context of the 

proposed competitive bidding 

mechanism. Commenters are also 

invited to provide information about 

what factors are most important in 

targeting limited support for mobile 

wireless service within Tribal lands. 

2. Possible Requirement for Engagement 

With Tribal Governments Prior to 

Auction 

6. Several commenters suggest that 

parties participating in a Mobility Fund 

auction seeking support to serve Tribal 

lands be required to demonstrate that 

Tribal governments have been formally 

and effectively engaged in the planning 

process and that the service to be 

provided will advance the goals 

established by the Tribal government. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

those proposals. What issues should 

receive priority in a flow of information 

and exchange of ideas with Tribal 

governments? What subjects of 

discussion will increase the potential 

for sustainability and adoption of the 

contemplated service? Among other 

things, the Commission believes the 

topics of engagement with Tribal 

governments could include: (1) Needs 

assessment, deployment planning and 

inclusion of Tribal anchor institutions 

and communities; (2) feasibility and 

sustainability planning; (3) marketing 

supported services in a culturally 

sensitive manner; (4) rights-of-way 

processes, land use permitting, facilities 

siting and cultural preservation review 

processes; and, (5) compliance with 

Tribal business and licensing 

requirements. At what point in time 

should any such engagement 

requirement apply (e.g., at the shortform or long-form application stage)? 

Commenters are invited to address the 

appropriate scope and timing of a 

potential consultation requirement. 

3. Possible Preference for TriballyOwned and -Controlled Providers 

7. At least one comment to the 

Mobility Fund NPRM suggested a 

preference for Tribally-owned and 

-controlled providers. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks comment on a 

proposal that would provide a form of 

bidding credit to qualified Triballyowned and -controlled providers. If a 

provider qualified for this bidding 

credit, its per-unit bid amount would be 

reduced by a designated percentage for 

purposes of comparing it to other bids 

made—although if the bid were to win, 

support would be calculated at the full, 

undiscounted bid amount. That is, the 

‘‘reduced’’ bid would fall lower in the 

ranking of bids from lowest to highest, 

making it more likely that a Triballyowned and -controlled entity would be 

among the winning bidders eligible to 

receive funding, but the bidding credit 

would not reduce the amount of funding 

that the entity would receive if it were 

to be awarded support. The Commission 

seeks comment on this approach. The 

Commission also invites comment on 

whether a Tribal preference is 

appropriate in the context of awarding 

universal service funds. To the extent 

the Commission wishes to adopt such a 

bidding credit for Tribally-owned and 

-controlled providers, what percentage 

would be appropriate? Are there other 

methods the Commission should 

consider to provide a preference to 

Tribally-owned and -controlled 

providers? The Commission notes that 

the establishment of an absolute Tribal 

priority, as proposed in the mobile 

spectrum context and adopted in the 

context of the Tribal Priority for radio 

broadcast licensing, may not be 

appropriate here. This is because in the 

reverse auction mechanism proposed for 

the Mobility Fund, an award would not 

be made for each area, but instead 

support would be granted only for those 

areas where the per-unit bids are lowest. 

8. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether it should employ 

both a priority unit mechanism and a 

bidding preference for Tribal entities at 

the same time. And, if not, which of 

these mechanisms may work more 

effectively in a Mobility Fund auction to 

target support consistent with Tribal 

needs? 

4. Timing of a Tribal Mobility Fund 

Auction 

9. In the Mobility Fund NPRM, the 

Commission noted that addressing 

Mobility Fund support for Tribal lands 

on a separate track could be beneficial 

in providing adequate time to consult 

with Tribal governments and seek their 

input. While commenters generally 

supported creation of a separate Tribal 

Mobility Fund, they cautioned that 

addressing Tribal issues on a ‘‘separate 

track’’ should not put them on a ‘‘slow 

track.’’ The Commission agrees that 

Tribal issues are a priority and should 

be resolved expeditiously in order to 

speed the provision of services on Tribal 

lands. The Commission observes, 

however, that there are pending 

proposals regarding utilization of 

spectrum over Tribal lands that could 

benefit from the support that may be 

available through a Tribal Mobility 

Fund auction. In particular, the 

Improving Communications Services for 

Native Nations by Promoting Greater 

Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal 

Lands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

76 FR 18476, April 4, 2011, proposes a 

variety of options for Tribal entities to 

access spectrum over Tribal lands. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

extent to which these open issues 

should influence the timing of a 

possible Tribal Mobility Fund auction. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Mobility Fund 

NPRM included an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 

5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential 

impact on small entities of the 

Commission’s proposal. The 

Commission invites parties to file 

comments on the IRFA in light of this 

additional notice. 

Procedural Matters 

Ex Parte Presentations. This matter 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the ex parte rules. Persons making oral 

ex parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Margaret W. Wiener, 

Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–9860 Filed 4–20–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 110218147–1199–01] 

RIN 0648–BA74 

National Standard 10 Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS